Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks Talks AI Usage in D&D [UPDATED!]

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks is convinced that the Dungeons & Dragons franchise will support some kind of AI usage in the future. Speaking today at a Goldman Sachs event, Cocks spoke about how AI products could soon support Dungeons & Dragons and other Hasbro brands. Asked about whether AI has the potential to "bend the cost curve" in terms of entertainment development or digital gaming, and how it's being used in the toy and content industries, Cocks said the following:

"Inside of development, we've already been using AI. It's mostly machine-learning-based AI or proprietary AI as opposed to a ChatGPT approach. We will deploy it significantly and liberally internally as both a knowledge worker aid and as a development aid. I'm probably more excited though about the playful elements of AI. If you look at a typical D&D player....I play with probably 30 or 40 people regularly. There's not a single person who doesn't use AI somehow for either campaign development or character development or story ideas. That's a clear signal that we need to be embracing it. We need to do it carefully, we need to do it responsibly, we need to make sure we pay creators for their work, and we need to make sure we're clear when something is AI-generated. But the themes around using AI to enable user-generated content, using AI to streamline new player introduction, using AI for emergent storytelling, I think you're going to see that not just our hardcore brands like D&D but also multiple of our brands."

Wizards of the Coast representatives has repeatedly said that Dungeons & Dragons is a game made by people for people, as multiple AI controversies has surrounded the brand and its parent company. Wizards updated its freelance contracts to explicitly prohibit use of AI and has pulled down AI-generated artwork that was submitted for Bigby's Presents: Glory of the Giants in 2023 after they learned it was made using AI tools.

A FAQ related to AI specifically notes that "Hasbro has a vast portfolio of 1900+ brands of which Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons are two – two very important, cherished brands. Each brand is going to approach its products differently. What is in the best interest of Trivial Pursuit is likely quite different than that of Magic: The Gathering or Dungeons & Dragons." This statement acknowledges that Hasbro may use AI for other brands, while also stating that Wizards is trying to keep AI-generated artwork away from the game. However, while Wizards seems to want to keep AI away from D&D and Magic, their parent company's CEO seems to think that AI and D&D aren't naturally opposed.

---

UPDATE -- Greg Tito, who was WotC's communications director until recently, commented on BlueSky: "I'm deeply mistrustful of AI and don't want people using it anywhere near my D&D campaigns."

 

[Oofta]

Not really. That bends the definition of 'regularly' pretty hard, to me.

For you, regularly may mean every week. For others it may be 2-3 times a year. I go to the dentist regularly every 6 months. The point is you don't get to decide what the word means for everyone.

 

[Scribe]

For you, regularly may mean every week. For others it may be 2-3 times a year. I go to the dentist regularly every 6 months. The point is you don't get to decide what the word means for everyone.

Yes, words mean whatever, given whatever context one wishes to arbitrarily apply.

Great.

At the end of the day you believe him, and I would have to be paid to believe him. No harm no foul.

 

[Clint_L]

you're kinder than I am. I would put it as "he's lying".

Whoa. I am sometimes running four campaigns at once (two at school and two at home, alternating weeks), so that’s around 30 people and I have a family and busy job. You don’t know what other people’s circumstances are.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, words mean whatever, given whatever context one wishes to arbitrarily apply.

Great.

At the end of the day you believe him, and I would have to be paid to believe him. No harm no foul.

No.

The difference is, I don't know. So, I don't know if I believe him or not, because I lack any evidence or any real reason to believe or disbelieve what he says. Which means I'll stay on the fence and not make a clear declaration either way because it's plausible that his definition of regular isn't your definition of regular.

I simply refuse to come to a strong opinion (I would have to be paid to believe him) without anything even remotely resembling evidence. So, yes, there is harm and foul. The world is a bad enough place without people deciding that other people are lying without having any actual reason to do so.

 

[Eric V]

No.

The difference is, I don't know. So, I don't know if I believe him or not, because I lack any evidence or any real reason to believe or disbelieve what he says. Which means I'll stay on the fence and not make a clear declaration either way because it's plausible that his definition of regular isn't your definition of regular.

I simply refuse to come to a strong opinion (I would have to be paid to believe him) without anything even remotely resembling evidence. So, yes, there is harm and foul. The world is a bad enough place without people deciding that other people are lying without having any actual reason to do so.

He could be merely exaggerating, no real intent to deceive.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, words mean whatever, given whatever context one wishes to arbitrarily apply.

Great.

At the end of the day you believe him, and I would have to be paid to believe him. No harm no foul.

I don't think it's okay to casually insult people by calling them liars with no proof.

 

[Incenjucar]

Ultimately he's showing that either he doesn't have a common experience and/or he says false things about what experience he does have. A millionaire CEO is unlikely to ever really have an average person's experience given their position.

 

[Oofta]

Ultimately he's showing that either he doesn't have a common experience and/or he says false things about what experience he does have. A millionaire CEO is unlikely to ever really have an average person's experience given their position.

One person's common is another person's never happens whatever your career. Several people have stated now (myself included) have played or are currently playing with a large number of people on a regular basis.

 

[Incenjucar]

One person's common is another person's never happens whatever your career. Several people have stated now (myself included) have played or are currently playing with a large number of people on a regular basis.

True. And there are D&D groups composed entirely of famous Hollywood stars, super models, active military, or librarians.

 

[Bunch]

This is a myth, the law largely leaves it up to the corporation itself to decide how to do business and what its goals should be. If the shareholders are unhappy with the direction the corporation is taking, they can vote to replace the board and senior management, not go crying to the courts.

What a corporation is not allowed to do is to favor some shareholders over others. Mark Zuckerberg can't treat Facebook as his personal toy and piggy bank just because he holds a controlling interest in the corporation, that would be unfair to the other shareholders. If Mark wants to take cash out of Facebook, he has to share with all the other shareholders.

Actually it can favor some shareholders more than others if it is structured specifically to do that. Google when it went public used just such a structure. It gave one class of shareholders (primarily the founders but also some early investors) 30x voting power over regular shareholders. Sales of those super shares much first be converted to regular shares before being sold. This structure is apparently more common for companies like newspapers or products with an editorial board. That's so the company can maintain independence of shareholders bullying. Think of a newspaper reporting on financial / political misdeeds of some wealthy shareholder. The structure prevents the wealthy person from buying all the shares and compelling the newspaper to print nice stories about the individual.

In Google's case they told IPO investors that the two co-founders wanted to not be beholden to short sighted financial goals so they could favor the long run.


More generally companies have to act,as said above, in the best interests of all shareholders. They have considerable leeway in whether to focus on the short term or long and courts are unlikely to second guess what's in the best interest unless it is egregiously bad.

@Sorcerers Apprentice I probably shouldn't have just quoted you as I largely agree with your post but I'm too lazy to fix it